Issue: As the result of a Spot Check, SPP determined that Louisiana Energy and Power Authority (LEPA) failed to provide its systems operators with clear authority to respond to emergencies and ensure the reliability of the LEPA system in violation of R1 because it failed to authorize its systems operators to direct manual load shedding.

Finding: SPP determined that the violation posed a minimal risk but did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because LEPA does not own or operate any transmission or distribution assets, does not have a SCADA system, and had sufficient relationships in place to ensure manual load shedding would occur if necessary. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found this was LEPA’s first violation of the subject Reliability Standards, LEPA was cooperative, there was no evidence of an intent or attempt to conceal a violation; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors.

Issue: Sunflower, in its role as a BA, self-reported a violation of R2 when it did not take timely action to acquire alternative sources of generation following an Energy Emergency Alert Level 3 (EEA3) that occurred on its system, leading it to only partially implement its Capacity and Energy Emergency Plan (Plan). Although Sunflower system operators immediately coordinated with the SPP Reliability Coordinator to initiate a Reserve Sharing Event, and contacted the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency to bring all available municipal generation on-line, the BA was delayed in contacting several additional cities with which it has contracted rights to the municipal generating capacity to direct them to generate as much energy as safely possible. Pursuant to Sunflower's Capacity and Energy Emergency Step process, when system operators begin making arrangements to replace Sunflower's energy requirements with available generation, they were to "[c]all on Sunflower cities to generate to cover their own load." The system operators therefore should have called the legacy cities when they began making their arrangements for alternative sources. Instead, the cities were contacted 13 hours after system operators began making their arrangements.

Finding: SPP determined that the R2 violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS because although Sunflower did not follow its Plan to protect its system following an EEA3 and thus created a potentially imminent requirement to shed load, only one of the eight facilities in the legacy cities would have been available to generate additional energy, and that facility would have contributed less than 10 MW. SPP also noted that Sunflower maximized other available generation and that the BA did not initiate any load shed during the event. SPP and Sunflower entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Sunflower agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. SPP considered Sunflower's formal internal compliance program a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination and also found that Sunflower's compliance history was not an aggravating factor. The duration of the violation was from February 2, 2011 through February 3, 2011. Sunflower neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Issue: Sunflower, in its role as a BA, self-reported a violation of R4 after it failed to acquire alternative generation sources in a timely manner following an Energy Emergency Alert Level 3 (EEA3) on the Sunflower system. Sunflower requested the EEA3 after a generating unit tripped, causing Sunflower's system load to exceed firm capacity. Sunflower system operators immediately coordinated with the SPP Reliability Coordinator to initiate a Reserve Sharing Event and contacted the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency to bring all available municipal generation on-line. In spite of the anticipated energy emergency, Sunflower was delayed in contacting several additional cities with which it has contracted rights to the municipal generating capacity to direct them to generate as much energy as safely possible.

Finding: SPP determined that the R4 violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS because Sunflower did not bring all of its generation on-line before seeking an EEA3 and subsequently failed to notify its member cities to bring available generation on-line, thus creating a potentially imminent requirement to shed load. In spite of this, SPP acknowledged that even if Sunflower had immediately notified its member cities to bring on-line available generation, only one of the eight facilities would have been available and would have contributed less than 10 MW. SPP also noted that Sunflower maximized other available generation and that the BA did not initiate any load shed during the event. SPP and Sunflower entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Sunflower agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R4. SPP considered Sunflower's internal compliance program a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination and also found that Sunflower's compliance history was not an aggravating factor. The duration of the violation was from February 2, 2011 through February 3, 2011. Sunflower neither admits nor denies the R4 violation.